This is an amazing website (via Dr. Rima Laibow) that generates a letter for you asking that every candidate say what their stance is on forced vaccination. The letter is automatically sent to your elected representatives (State) and to Barak Obama, as well. You have control over what the subject is and you see your State representatives' pictures, contact information.

PLACER COUNTY (CBS13) — A heated debate over required vaccinations for schoolchildren may be about to erupt again in Placer County.

The state’s vaccine law passed last year, but school district trustees are considering asking the state to consider a delay. Parents are required to get students vaccine ready by July.

Elisa Rios opposes what was once Senate Bill 277. It requires students to get vaccinations to attend public schools.

“I really think it goes against our freedom,” she said.

Now, the Placer County Union High School District is considering a resolution to delay that requirement for two years after a statewide effort to repeal the law failed to gather enough signatures to qualify for the ballot.

The district wouldn’t comment, but the item calling for the delay was placed on the agenda by a group which opposes mandatory vaccinations. That group claims there will be a financial impact on schools when people start to sue.

Rios says her first-born child was affected by vaccines, so she has a medical exemption for her children.

“If they could not do it at all that would be great,” she said....

Logged

Behold, happy is the man whom God correcteth: therefore despise not thou the chastening of the Almighty: For he maketh sore, and bindeth up: he woundeth, and his hands make whole ; He shall deliver thee in six troubles: yea, in seven there shall no evil touch thee. - Job 5

Resistance in Placer County Calif. : ( this Christian/Tea party Stronghold was a center for the forced school vaccination fight: )

The local teevee stations trotted out over 65 elderly warning about the days of Polio ... totally bizarre

Here is the totally 'BAZZAR' story of the Polio vaccine (THEN AND NOW) as told by big pharma itself.

According to big pharma I, John at 53 years of age, have to keep getting the polio vaccine (booster) until I am pushing up daisies.

WHY?

Because, according to big pharma, the polio vaccine given back in the day that was sold as one and done deal, really was only good for a few years.

So, if big pharma is sticking to their story that their vaccines are really only good for a few years, how in the world did the polio vaccine EVER cure USA of the polio epidemic? If it was ONLY good for a few years, USA SHOULD HAVE seen polio make a come back in a population where the vaccine wore off of all those children that received it!

The vaccine companies / government thinks that the public is so stupid that they can have it both ways when selling their BS on vaccines. How could a vaccine with only a few year effectiveness cure the polio epidemic? HINT: It couldn't.

The vaccine cult of personality lobby is doing everything in their power to distance the possibility that the famous 'Bernie Sanders' look alike baby died from his annual round of multi does vaccines (drugs).

The corporate media in their coverage are 'assuring' parents that SIDS has been around "long before" vaccines ever came around to haunt us all. Which is true. However, what the corporate media is NOT informing the public about is an epidemic of SIDS was never recorded until the USA vaccine schedule went completely bananas.

Today USA has one of, if not the highest, infant mortality rates in the world for a developed country. It seems elementary in a sane civil society, that maybe today's parents should reject the idea that their child should become a human pin cushion for the pharmaceutical companies.

Behold, happy is the man whom God correcteth: therefore despise not thou the chastening of the Almighty: For he maketh sore, and bindeth up: he woundeth, and his hands make whole ; He shall deliver thee in six troubles: yea, in seven there shall no evil touch thee. - Job 5

OAKLAND (KPIX 5) — Scores of California students may be sent home on their first day of school because of a new vaccine law that took effect this year.

The new state law took effect July 1. Now, parents can no longer use personal or religious beliefs as a reason not to have their kids immunized.

Monday WAS the first day of school for kids in Oakland. Hundreds of them were expected to be sent home.

“There could be a few hundred kids that are not immunized and so we’ll be encouraging them as quickly as possible to get out there,” said Oakland Unified School District John Sasaki. “Their parents may try to drop them off and we’ll have to turn them away.”

Young children who got their personal belief exemptions approved before January 2016, will be grandfathered in. According to the new law, they still must get immunized when they reach seventh grade.

This school year, kindergartners and seventh graders must show proof of immunizations.

Logged

Behold, happy is the man whom God correcteth: therefore despise not thou the chastening of the Almighty: For he maketh sore, and bindeth up: he woundeth, and his hands make whole ; He shall deliver thee in six troubles: yea, in seven there shall no evil touch thee. - Job 5

A federal judge may rule next week on a request to temporarily stop California’s new vaccination law, an unwelcome delay for vaccination opponents seeking a speedy injunction that would allow students who don’t meet vaccination requirements to start the new school year.

Judge Dana Sabraw said he was aware of the urgency of his ruling and asked about start dates for California schools, according to courtroom observers. Schools in Redlands already have opened their doors, and the Los Angeles Unified School District, the largest district in the state, began school this week. Sabraw said he would likely issue a ruling the week of Aug. 22....

Education 4 All filed suit July 1 against the California Department of Education and other state agencies charging that the law violates the right to education guaranteed in the California Constitution.

The suit, Whitlow v. the California Department of Education, was filed on behalf of Ana Whitlow, a San Diego parent of a 7th-grader and a kindergartner who does not want her children to obtain the required vaccinations, and 20 other individuals and nonprofit organizations. If granted, an injunction would temporarily reinstate the personal belief exemption to vaccination requirements while the lawsuit proceeds.

...

| - - -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dana_Makoto_Sabraw...Sabraw is a federal judge on the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. Sabraw was nominated by President George W. Bush on May 1, 2003, to a new seat created by 116 Stat. 1758. He was confirmed by the United States Senate on September 25, 2003, and received his commission on September 26, 2003....

http://www.ageofautism.com/2016/08/media-coverage-of-ca-sb277.html...Rebecca Estepp, spokeswoman for Education 4 All, a Sacramento-based advocacy group that requested the temporary restraining order as part of its lawsuit seeking to overturn the law, called the delay “unfortunate” but somewhat understandable. “It’s a complicated topic,” she said. She described Sabraw’s manner during the oral arguments as “very thorough and very thoughtful” and said, “It was a fair hearing.” ...

Logged

Behold, happy is the man whom God correcteth: therefore despise not thou the chastening of the Almighty: For he maketh sore, and bindeth up: he woundeth, and his hands make whole ; He shall deliver thee in six troubles: yea, in seven there shall no evil touch thee. - Job 5

The Supreme Court ruling of 1905 that paved the way for 'police powers' on vaccines (state vaccine mandates) was very clear on 'limiting' police powers to the state for 'emergency only' situations. According to the 1905 ruling, states are NOT allowed to use vaccine (or medicinal) mandates for 'administrative' reasons. i.e. to comply with the CDC's RECOMMENDED vaccine schedule.

States that do NOT allow a religious AND personal belief vaccine exemption (informed consent) is absolutely violating the very ruling that granted the states 'authority' to mandate vaccines to begin with.

The Supreme Court ruling of 1905 that paved the way for 'police powers' on vaccines (state vaccine mandates) was very clear on 'limiting' police powers to the state for 'emergency only' situations. According to the 1905 ruling, states are NOT allowed to use vaccine (or medicinal) mandates for 'administrative' reasons. i.e. to comply with the CDC's RECOMMENDED vaccine schedule.

States that do NOT allow a religious AND personal belief vaccine exemption (informed consent) is absolutely violating the very ruling that granted the states 'authority' to mandate vaccines to begin with.

It still seems the concept of limited policing powers by the government today is an oxymoron . Especially in the one party ( communist) state of California ,,, or after the 36 years of NWO Globalist Clinton/Bush/Obama federal cabal

Justice John Marshall Harlan delivered the decision for a 7-2 majority. He rejected Jacobson's claim that the Fourteenth Amendment gave him the right to refuse vaccination. Harlan deemed that the Massachusetts state punishment of a fine or imprisonment on those who refused vaccines was acceptable, but those individuals could not be forcibly vaccinated.[5] At the end of his decision, he acknowledged that for certain individuals, the requirement of vaccination would be cruel and inhumane and so an overreach of government power. That created a medical exemption for adults under the Massachusetts health law, but Harlan denied that Henning Jacobson deserved exemption.[6]...

Harlan's decision supported both police power and limits on the power, and his decision would be invoked to support both in later cases. He stated his nuanced opinion on the limits of government power by saying that "general terms should be so limited in their application as not to lead to injustice, oppression or absurd consequence." ...

Subsequent developments[edit]

The anti-vaccine movement mobilized following the decision and the Anti-Vaccination League of America was founded three years later in Philadelphia to promote the principle that "health is nature's greatest safeguard against disease and that therefore no State has the right to demand of anyone the impairment of his or her health." The League warned about it believed to be the dangers of vaccination and the dangers of allowing the intrusion of government and science into private life, part of the broader process identified with the Progressive Movement. The League asked, "We have repudiated religious tyranny; we have rejected political tyranny; shall we now submit to medical tyranny?"[8]

The Supreme Court reaffirmed its decision in Jacobson in Zucht v. King (1922), which held that a school system could refuse admission to a student who failed to receive a required vaccination.[9]...

The United States does not derive any of its substantive powers from the Preamble of the Constitution...http://constitution.laws.com/preamble/jacobson-v-massachusetts-1905...The spirit of the Constitution can be understood through the Preamble's words, yes, but actual legal power would not arise from the Preamble. This means that, for all that the Preamble to the Constitution may provide a strong basic framework for understanding the intent behind the Constitution as a whole, the Preamble cannot be taken as directly legally relevant in providing rights or powers either to the citizen or to the State

Quote

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1449224/Jacobson v Massachusetts: It’s Not Your Great-Great-Grandfather’s Public Health LawAm J Public Health. 2005 April; 95(4): 581–590../ONE HUNDRED YEARS AGO, in Jacobson v Massachusetts, the US Supreme Court upheld the Cambridge, Mass, Board of Health’s authority to require vaccination against smallpox during a smallpox epidemic.2 Jacobson was one of the few Supreme Court cases before 1960 in which a citizen challenged the state’s authority to impose mandatory restrictions on personal liberty for public health purposes. What might such a case teach us today? First, it raises timeless questions about the power of state government to take specific action to protect the public’s health and the Constitution’s protection of personal liberty. What limits state power? What does constitutionally protected liberty include?...Public health programs that are based on force are a relic of the 19th century; 21st-century public health depends on good science, good communication, and trust in public health officials to tell the truth. In each of these spheres, constitutional rights are the ally rather than the enemy of public health. Preserving the public’s health in the 21st century requires preserving respect for personal liberty.

Logged

Behold, happy is the man whom God correcteth: therefore despise not thou the chastening of the Almighty: For he maketh sore, and bindeth up: he woundeth, and his hands make whole ; He shall deliver thee in six troubles: yea, in seven there shall no evil touch thee. - Job 5

Belgrade - Occupation of our country reaches unprecedented proportions! In addition to the state abduction and sale, non-alteration to the European Union, the alignment of our laws with supranational institutions at all costs, and against the will of the majority population in Serbia, the colonial administration and the agents of multinational corporations in white make unacceptable usurpation of parental rights in Serbia! Through their media kerberas, humiliation of parents that refuse the vaccination of their children is carried on daily, with the delusional threats of taking away children. At the same time, informed and thoughtful parents are not given any meaningful and articulated response to this controversial medical intervention that becomes non-alternative.

While throughout Europe, currently in Italy and Poland, millions of people on the streets fighting for the basic human right to the inviolability of physical identity, which is guaranteed by the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia, is explained to the Serb people as being uneducated, stupid and evil, and offering children " The right "to choose the sex to which the sexual partner belongs. Proponents and lobbyists are obligatory, and in fact forced vaccinations, in a row, some even by their own admission, financed by pharmaceutical companies or their careers and jobs, are directly dependent on political correctness on this issue. On the other hand, doctors who remember medical ethics, the principle of informed consent and the rules of "primum non nocere" are threatened with the confiscation of a medical license, due to the view of the inadmissibility of forced vaccination!

A clear belief in the recommendations of the World Health Organization whose vaccination campaign is funded by Bill Gates is as rational as the belief of the first escort in the choice of misconceptions that the United Nations maintains peace in the world. Aside from the fact that these "recommendations" in Serbia become an obligation.

If there is a people who is related to their offspring, it is the Serb people. If there is a parent who is ready at all times to sacrifice his own life for the defense of his child, that is a Serbian parent. Maybe it's "monkey" love, but the Serbs are not experimental monkeys!

SRPSKA VERTIKALA

Dr. Jovana Stojkovic

Chairman of the Committee for the Health of Movement "SRPSKA VERTIKALA"